Olivia Wilde - talented enough but insanely good lookingGemma Arterton - very good lookingNatalie Portman - very talented, very good lookingClaire Danes - not as good looking, but I think the most talented female actress around

Assuming that Love Happens is bad without seeing it is different than assuming SLP is good without seeing it? And Aaron Eckhart and Jennifer Aniston are both good enough actors.

No, that's pretty much the same scenario, you're right. And agreed, especially with the former -- Eckhart is solid.

But assuming SLP is bad because Love Happens is bad is where the issue is, I think.

this is at least the 3rd time i've said this, and this will probably be the 3rd time it's ignored...i don't assume SLP is bad. it might be a perfectly pleasant movie, but i discredit it as oscar-caliber because of its un-compelling premise. and the fact that the culmination revolves around a dance contest certainly doesn't help.

The reason it keeps being ignored is because its aggressively stupid.

I've never seen SLP, but how you can conclude it is or is not "oscar-caliber" based on an "uncompelling premise", when it features highly-acclaimed performances by its actors/actresses makes no sense. Maybe it doesn't interest you, and that's fine, but just staking out this position is silly IMO.

Assuming that Love Happens is bad without seeing it is different than assuming SLP is good without seeing it? And Aaron Eckhart and Jennifer Aniston are both good enough actors.

No, that's pretty much the same scenario, you're right. And agreed, especially with the former -- Eckhart is solid.

But assuming SLP is bad because Love Happens is bad is where the issue is, I think.

this is at least the 3rd time i've said this, and this will probably be the 3rd time it's ignored...i don't assume SLP is bad. it might be a perfectly pleasant movie, but i discredit it as oscar-caliber because of its un-compelling premise. and the fact that the culmination revolves around a dance contest certainly doesn't help.

The reason it keeps being ignored is because its aggressively stupid.

I've never seen SLP, but how you can conclude it is or is not "oscar-caliber" based on an "uncompelling premise", when it features highly-acclaimed performances by its actors/actresses makes no sense. Maybe it doesn't interest you, and that's fine, but just staking out this position is silly IMO.

I've seen the movie with my wife and another couple. I really like the husband in the other couple, but he is clearly more of a "yes dear" guy than I am. That said, the other three (him included) wanted to see this movie. I went along without any expectation of seeing a good movie.

The movie was very entertaining, and the portrayal of two folks simultaneously dealing with mental illness striking up a relationship that benefits both of them - culminating in a Dance contest as a "moment" for each of them was actually genius. The entire movie was Oscar worthy.

The characters were great. Jennifer Lawrence was as likeable and nuanced in her role - as likeable as she is in "real" life, that she deserved what she got. Anyone who knows someone close to them that has struggled with mental illness in any way would have empathy for her character, Bradley Cooper's as well as the family around them's intense feelings and actions in the most emotional scenes. In my eyes, you could cut this intensity with a knife yet it never went over the top into a characature.

Plus, apparently she smokes weed like the rest of the world and tells great stories about her brothers treating her mercilessly in her younger days. I mean, she would be fun to hang out with it seems.

Olivia Wilde - talented enough but insanely good lookingGemma Arterton - very good lookingNatalie Portman - very talented, very good lookingClaire Danes - not as good looking, but I think the most talented female actress around

I don't dispute the relative hotness of those ladies, but the list was compiled to refute the assertion that the list of "talented, A-list actresses who are also really, really, ridiculously good-looking" would not be very expansive. The factors that went into the creation of my list were, 1) Are they generally considered "really, really, ridiculously good-looking"? 2) Are they 'talented'? (So I searched by wins of or nominations for major acting awards) and finally 3) Are they A-list? (Which I interpret as someone who can influence things like casting their male counterpart, or command eight-figure salaries, or who can get a project greenlit simply by attaching their name to it) I don't think any of your additions pass the third test, although Portman is probably the closest.

slappybrown wrote:The reason it keeps being ignored is because its aggressively stupid.

that's not really the reason, but you needed a fun segue into your point, so ok.

slappybrown wrote:I've never seen SLP, but how you can conclude it is or is not "oscar-caliber" based on an "uncompelling premise", when it features highly-acclaimed performances by its actors/actresses makes no sense. Maybe it doesn't interest you, and that's fine, but just staking out this position is silly IMO.

if only my first post in this thread acknowledged the flimsiness of my POV.

slappybrown wrote:The reason it keeps being ignored is because its aggressively stupid.

that's not really the reason, but you needed a fun segue into your point, so ok.

slappybrown wrote:I've never seen SLP, but how you can conclude it is or is not "oscar-caliber" based on an "uncompelling premise", when it features highly-acclaimed performances by its actors/actresses makes no sense. Maybe it doesn't interest you, and that's fine, but just staking out this position is silly IMO.

if only my first post in this thread acknowledged the flimsiness of my POV.

I was just telling you why :shrug: knowing its dumb doesn't help either.